Environ. Eng. Res.

2015; 20(1): 001-018 pISSN 1226-1025

http://dx.doi.org/10.4491/eer.2015.018 eISSN 2005-968X

Review Article

Bioadsorbents for remediation of heavy metals:

Current status and their future prospects
Vinod Kumar Gupta1,2,3†, Arunima Nayak4, Shilpi Agarwal1
1
Department of Chemistry, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, India
2
Department of Applied Chemistry, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2028, South Africa
3
Center for Environment and Water, The Research Institute, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
4
Department of Chemistry, Graphic Era Deemed University, Dehradun 248001, India

ABSTRACT
The biosorption process has been established as characteristics of dead biomasses of both cellulosic and microbial origin to bind metal ion
pollutants from aqueous suspension. The high effectiveness of this process even at low metal concentration, similarity to ion exchange treatment
process, but cheaper and greener alternative to conventional techniques have resulted in a mature biosorption technology. Yet its adoption
to large scale industrial wastewaters treatment has still been a distant reality. The purpose of this review is to make in-depth analyses of the
various aspects of the biosorption technology, staring from the various biosorbents used till date and the various factors affecting the process.
The design of better biosorbents for improving their physico-chemical features as well as enhancing their biosorption characteristics has been
discussed. Better economic value of the biosorption technology is related to the repeated reuse of the biosorbent with minimum loss of efficiency.
In this context desorption of the metal pollutants as well as regeneration of the biosorbent has been discussed in detail. Various inhibitions
including the multi mechanistic role of the biosorption technology has been identified which have played a contributory role to its
non-commercialization.

Keywords: Algae, Bacteria, Biosorption, Fungi, Plant organic waste, Toxic metal

1. Introduction requires further treatment thereby increasing the overall cost. Such
disadvantages along with the requirement of more effective and
economical methods for treatment of metal laden wastewater have
Technological advances by humans have resulted in the con-
resulted in the development of biosorption as an alternative
tamination of water bodies resulting in the presence of toxic pollu-
technology. Biosorption is the property exhibited by inactive,
tants at concentrations well above the limits set by World Health
non-living substances of biological origin to bind and to accumulate
Organization (WHO) and the Environmental protection agency
metal ions from aqueous solution [23, 24]. In other words the
(EPA) [1, 2]. The hazards imposed to humans and aquatic life
interaction between the biomass and the metal ions is phys-
associated with exposure to metals like chromium, lead, mercury,
ico-chemical, metabolism independent process with the under-
cadmium and arsenic have been well established in the literature
lying mechanism being absorption, adsorption, ion exchange, sur-
[3-8]. The toxicity of such metal ions arise due to their non-bio-
face complexation and precipitation [24-26]. Bioaccumulation is
degradable nature thereby accumulating in the living cells and
another technology using living biomass for heavy metal removal.
impairing the normal functions of various organs of living beings.
It is an active process depending on the metabolism of the living
Technologies like chemical precipitation, electrochemical separa-
organism [27, 28]. But the toxicity of metal ions hinders metal
tion, membrane separation, reverse osmosis, ion exchange and
uptake by living organisms and hence bioaccumulation has lower
adsorption resins though effective for metal remediation, yet are
kinetics and lesser efficiency as compared to biosorption. The
not competitive in industrial application [9-22]. Such methods
biosorption technique has enjoyed immense success in comparison
involve either large capital or operational costs, and are not effective
to conventional techniques in sequestering metal ions from ppm
in removing metal ions present in ppm levels [12, 18]. Chemical
to ppb levels in aqueous suspension [29-33]. Also, its metal removal
precipitation involves large generation of harmful sludge which

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms Received February 16, 2015 Accepted March 24, 2015
of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License
(http://creativecommons. org/ licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which per- † Corresponding author
mits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any Email: vinodfcy@iitr.ernet.in
medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Tel: +91-1332-285801 Fax: +91-1332-273560
Copyright © 2015 Korean Society of Environmental Engineers

1
V. K. Gupta et al.
efficiency has been reported to be very high even in very dilute
complex solutions having diverse types of pollutants. Its faster
kinetics of metal removal has made it beneficial for treating large
volume of wastewater. It has been found to be operative over
a wide range of temperature, pH conditions along with the presence
of other ions. Such advantages along with the lower cost of the
biosorbents, potential for regeneration of the biosorbents, metal
recovery and minimum generation of toxic sludge have made the
biosorption process more competitive for industrial application.
Compared to ion exchange and adsorption resins, the use of dead
biomass as biosorbent is more environmental friendly because
of its easy disposal [31]. The immense potential of this technology
has thus led to its evolution from an alternative approach to a
powerful technology for the treatment of industrial wastewater
for metal removal and recovery [32, 33]. The metal uptake by
biosorption is a surface phenomenon and is a function of the
surface properties of the biosorbent. Since the ultimate efficiency
of the biosorption process hinges on the performance of the bio-
sorbent material, a critical study is required on the different materi-
als of biological origin that have been successfully tested as bio-
sorbents for metal ions. Table 1 and 2 summarizes the findings
of an in-depth literature study carried out focusing on not only
the different biosorbents used thus far but also on their capacities
for metal uptake. Elaborate and detailed comparison of the bio-
sorptive performance of various biomasses has been made by vari-
ous researchers and scientists [150-170]. Researchers have summar-
ized the role of various biomasses in heavy metal removal from
aqueous solutions as can be evident from the review works.
Vijayaraghavan and Yun [150] demonstrated the biosorption poten-
tial of bacterial biosorbents. Bishnoi and Garima [151], Sag [152]
and Wang and Chen [153] made extensive studies on fungal
biosorbents. McHale AP and McHale S [154] and later Gupta and
Mohapatra [155] concluded that microbial biomass were an eco-
nomical alternative for removal of heavy metals from waste water.
The progress and prospects of using various algal species as metal
biosorbents were assessed by Wilde and Benemann [156], Mehta
and Gaur [157] and Romera et al. [158]. Among the plant based
biomass, sawdust of various tree species has been established
as an efficient biosorbents by Shukla et al. [159]. Crini [160],
Gerente et al. [161] and Suhas and Carrott [162] demonstrated
chitosan, polysaccharide and lignin based materials as economical
biosorbents. Individual biosorption performances of rice husk and
wheat straw/bran were extensively reviewed by Foo and Hameed
[163] and Farooq et al. [164] for the removal of metal ions from
waters. Various agricultural waste biomasses were compared on
the basis of their biosorption performance for the removal of heavy
metals as evident from various reviews [165-168]. Ngah and
Hanafiah [169] reviewed studies on chemically treated plant waste
based biosorbents and concluded that the treated biosorbents were
better in the removal of metal ions like Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn and Ni
from various aqueous streams. Similar conclusion was drawn on
modified biosorbents by O’Connell et al. [170]. From such reviews,
it is clearly evident that the biosorbents studied till data fall under
two major classes; the plant based biomass and microbial based
biomass. Secondly the discussion in such reviews is restricted
to a particular type of biomass for metal ion remediation from
aqueous phase. Infact few researchers have attempted to compile
2
and compare data related to various biomasses a broad range of
biomass [171-173]. Overall it can be seen that the biosorption
performance of a particular biosorbent for specific metal ions has
been found to vary widely as can be evident from the compiled
literature data as presented in the Tables. This may be because
of different process parameters selected by the researchers in their
search for optimum biosorbent. Some used biomass in their native
form and others used their modified forms so as to improve their
metal uptake performance. In spite of the limitations of comparative
analyses, overall a major conclusion can be made that micro-organ-
isms like micro algae, macro algae, bacteria, fungi, yeast, agricul-
tural wastes and certain industrial wastes have demonstrated good
biosorption properties for metal ions.
The overall objective of the study is to make a critical in-depth
study on each such class of biosorbents so as to evaluate the
various factors affecting the biosorption process along with their
underlying mechanism. The findings and analyses are henceforth
presented in the present work in the following sections. Current
research work on the biosorption is not only summarized but
also future directions are suggested. The future prospects pertaining
to the establishment of the biosorption technology as a solid founda-
tion for heavy metal remediation from industrial waste streams
are discussed.
2. Biosorbent Materials
Economic consideration and efficiency of the biosorption technol-
ogy hinges on the effectiveness of the biosorbents, the easy avail-
ability of their precursors and cost effectiveness of the entire
process. The easy availability of the biological sources viz. micro-
organisms like algae, fungi, weeds, bacteria, yeasts agricultural
waste products along with their cost effective processing to bio-
sorbents have resulted in the establishment of a mature and wide
spread prevalence of the biosorption technology. The biosorbents
have been categorized under microorganism like bacteria, fungi,
yeast, algae, agricultural by-products like rice husk, bran of rice,
wheat, sugarcane bagasse, fruit wastes, weeds etc. and other poly-
saccharide materials. The biosorbents, irrespective of their source
have demonstrated good metal removal efficiencies. The microbial
biosorbents have been either cultured or developed in the laboratory
or have been procured from various food processing or pharmaco-
logical industries. Potential bacterial biosorbents showing good
metal removal capacities have been identified as gram positive
bacteria (Bacillus, Corynebacterium, Streptomyces, Staphylococcus
sp., etc.), gram negative bacteria (Pseudomonas, Enterobacter,
Aeromonassp, etc.) and cyanobacterium (Anabaena sp., etc.)
[105-121]. Fungal biosorbents which include yeast (Penicillium,
Saccharomyces), molds (Aspergillus, Rhizopus) and mushrooms
have shown the lowest biosorption potential [122-128]. Various
species of red algae (Gelidium), blue-green algae (Nostoc, Spirulina
sp., etc.), green (Ulva, Oedogonium sp., etc.) and brown algae
(Cystoseira, Sargassum sp., etc.) [129-149] have also been used
as efficient biosorbents. Weeds (Parthenium, Spirodela,
Fucusceranoides) [133, 134] are another class of biosorbents which
have shown good metal removal properties. Such microbial species
have been widely used as efficient biosorbents because of their
 Environmental Engineering Research 20(1) 001-018

Table 1. Biosorption Capacities of Various Biomass of Plant Origin for Removal of Toxic Metal Ions from Waste Water
Toxic metal ions Biomass source Biomass Adsorption capacity (mg/g) Reference
Cd(II) Rice
Cd(II) Rice waste Rice husk (phosphate treated) 2,000.00 [34]
Cd(II) Rice waste Rice husk (alkali treated) 125.94 [35]
Cd(II) Rice Husk Natural rice husk 73.96 [35]
Cd(II) Rice waste Rice husk (H3PO4 treated) 102.00 [36]
Cd(II) Rice waste NaOH treated rice husk (NRH) 20.24 [37]
Cd(II) Rice waste NaHCO3 treated rice husk (NCRH) 16.18 [37]
Cd(II) Rice Epichlorohydrin treated rice husk (ERH) 11.12 [37]
Cd(II) Rice waste Rice husk (sulfuric acid treatment) 40.92 [38]
Cd(II) Rice waste Rice husk ash 39.87 [39]
Cd(II) Wheat waste Wheat bran (ultrasonic treatment) 51.58 [40]
Cd(II) Wheat waste Wheat bran 22.78 [40]
Cd(II) Wheat waste Wheat straw 39.22 [41]
Cd(II) Wheat Wheat straw (urea treated) 4.25 [41]
Cd(II) Wheat waste Wheat straw 21.00 [42]
Cd(II) Wheat waste Wheat bran 21.00 [43]
Cd(II) Wheat waste Wheat bran 15.82 [43]
Cd(II) Wheat waste Wheat straw 14.56 [44]
Cd(II) Wheat waste Wheat straw 11.60 [45]
Cd(II) Coconut waste Puresorbe 285.70 [46]
Cd(II) Coconut waste Coir pith 93.40 [47]
Cd(II) Coconut Copra meal 4.99 [48]
Cd(II) Peels Orange peel (chem mod) 136.05 [49]
Cd(II) Peel Orange peel 47.60 [49]
Cd(II) Peel Mango peel 68.92 [50]
Cd(II) Peels Banana peel 35.52 [51]
Cd(II) Peel Banana peel 5.71 [52]
Cd(II) Peel Pomelo peel 21.83 [53]
Cd(II) Seeds Raw date pit 35.90 [54]
Cd(II) Coffee waste Raw coffee powder 15.65 [55]
Cd(II) Tea Tea waste 11.29 [56]
Cd(II) Bark Pinus roxburghii bark 3.01 [57]
Cr(VI) Wheat Wheat straw (chem mod) 322.58 [58]
Cr(VI) Wheat Wheat bran (chem mod) 93.00 [59]
Cr(VI) Wheat Wheat bran 310.58 [60]
Cr(VI) Wheat Wheat straw 21.34 [61]
Cr(VI) Peel Banana peel 131.56 [62]
Cr(VI) Seed Sapotaceae seed (chitosan+acid) 84.31 [54]
Cr(VI) Seed Sapotaceae seed (chitosan coated) 76.23 [54]
Cr(VI) Seed Sapotaceae seed (acid coated) 59.63 [54]
Cr(VI) Coconuts CSC (chitosan+HNO3) 10.88 [63]
Cr(VI) Coconut CSC (chitosan+H2SO4) 4.05 [63]
Cr(VI) Coconut CSCCC (chitosan) 3.65 [63]
Cr(VI) Fruit Bael fruit 17.27 [64]
Cr(VI) Husk Groundnut husk (Ag coated) 11.40 [65]
Cr(VI) Husk Groundnut husk 7.00 [65]
Cr(VI) Shell Almond shell 3.40 [66]
Cr(VI) Shells Hazelnut shell 8.28 [66]

3
V. K. Gupta et al.

Toxic metal ions Biomass source Biomass Adsorption capacity (mg/g) Reference
Cr(VI) Shells Walnut shell 8.01 [66]
Cr(VI) Bark Pinus roxburghii bark 4.15 [67]
Cu(II) Wheat Wheat bran 8.34 [68]
Cu(II) Wheat Wheat bran 6.85 [69]
Cu(II) Wheat Wheat straw 11.43 [44]
Cu(II) Wheat Wheat bran 12.70 [70]
Cu(II) Wheat Wheat bran 17.42 [71]
Cu(II) Wheat Wheat bran (dehydrated) 51.50 [72]
Cu(II) Sago Sago husk ash 12.40 [73]
Cu(II) Rice Rice husk (acid treated) 29.00 [74]
Cu(II) Peel Potato peel (ZnCl2 treatment) 74.00 [75]
Cu(II) Peel Orange peel (chem mod) 70.67 [49]
Cu(II) Peel Orange peel 50.94 [49]
Cu(II) Peel Mango peel 46.09 [76]
Cu(II) Hull Peanut hull 21.25 [77]
Cu(II) Hull Peanut hull pellet 12.00 [78]
Cu(II) Hull Peanut hull 9.00 [78]
Cu(II) Seed Cicerarientinum 18.00 [79]
Cu(II) Shell Chestnut shell 12.56 [80]
Cu(II) Shell Chestnut shell (acid treated) 5.48 [81]
Cu(II) Bark Casuarina equisetifolia bark 16.58 [82]
Cu(II) Bark Rhizophoraapiculata tannin 8.78 [83]
Cu(II) Bark Pinus roxburghii bark 3.81 [67]
Cu(II) Tea Tea waste 8.64 [56]
Cu(II) Tea Tea waste 48.00 [84]
Co(II) Coconut Coir pith 12.82 [85]
Co(II) Peel Lemon peel 22.00 [86]
Hg(II) Rice Rice husk (sulphuric acid treatment) 384.62 [87]
Hg(II) Shell Walnut shell (ZnCl2 mod) 151.50 [88]
Hg(II) Wheat Wheat bran (chem mod) 70.00 [59]
Hg(II) Coconut Chem mod coir pith (PGCP-COOH) 13.73 [89]
Pb(II) Rice Rice husk (acid treated) 108.00 [74]
Pb(II) Rice Rice husk ash 91.74 [90]
Pb(II) Rice Rice husk ash 39.74 [73]
Pb(II) Wheat Wheat bran 87.00 [91]
Pb(II) Wheat Wheat bran (chem mod) 62.00 [59]
Pb(II) Coconut Coir pith waste 263.00 [92]
Pb(II) Tea Spent black tea 129.90 [93]
Pb(II) Tea Spent green tea 90.10 [93]
Pb(II) Tea Tea waste 65.00 [84]
Pb(II) Coffee Coffee (ZnCl2 mod) 63.00 [95]
Pb(II) Peel Mango peel 99.05 [50]
Pb(II) Peel Banana peel 2.18 [52]
Pb(II) Bark Moringa oleifera bark 34.60 [95]
Pb(II) Bark Rhizophoraapiculata tannin 31.32 [83]
Pb(II) Shell Shell carbon 30.00 [96]
Pb(II) Shel Hazelnut shell 28.18 [97]
Pb(II) Seed Cicerarientinum 20.00 [79]
Pb(II) Shell Chestnut shell (acid treated) 8.50 [81]

4
 Environmental Engineering Research 20(1) 001-018

Toxic metal ions Biomass source Biomass Adsorption capacity (mg/g) Reference
Pb(II) Shell Almond shell 8.08 [97]
Ni(II) Bark Pinus roxburghii bark 3.53 [67]
Ni(II) Bark Acacia leucocephala bark 294.10 [98]
Ni(II) Peel Orange peel 158.00 [99]
Ni(II) Peel Pomegranate peel 52.00 [100]
Ni(II) Peel Mango peel 39.75 [76]
Ni(II) Seed Guava seed (chem mod) 32.05 [101]
Ni(II) Seed Guava seed 18.05 [101]
Ni(II) Coconut Coir pith 15.95 [85]
Ni(II) Tea Tea waste 73.00 [102]
Zn(II) Shell Shell carbon (H3PO4+chitosan) 60.41 [103]
Zn(II) Shell Shell carbon (chitosan mod) 50.93 [103]
Zn(II) Shell Chestnut shell (acid treated) 2.41 [81]
Zn(II) Seed Cicerarientinum 20.00 [79]
Zn(II) Rice Rice husk ash 39.17 [73]
Zn(II) Rice Rice husk (sulphuric acid treatment) 19.38 [87]
Zn(II) Wheat Wheat bran 16.40 [70]
Zn(II) Tea Tea waste 8.90 [104]
Zn(II) Peel Mango peel 28.21 [76]
Se(IV) Rice Rice husk (sulphuric acid treatment) 41.15 [38]

widespread prevalence in nature and can be grown in large mass
at minimal cost. Also various fungal and bacterial species are
generated as wastes from different food/pharmaceutical industries.
Agricultural wastes like rice/wheat husk, bran, fruit or vegetable,
soybean hulls, saw dust of bark of various trees etc. have also
shown good metal biosorption properties. The biosorption capaci-
ties of the biomass were determined from equilibrium studies
by various researchers and such have been tabulated in Table
1, 2. Biosorbents as can be seen in the table show promising
biosorption potential for metal removal and have different affinity
to different heavy metals. Also some biosorbents can bind onto
a wide range of heavy metals with no specific priority, whereas
others are specific for certain types of metals [30, 172, 173]. Due
to the enormous difference in the nature of the biosorbents used
and the differences in the experimental conditions, it is difficult
to make a comparison on the efficiency of the biosorbents for
the removal of metal ions. Irrespective of such differences, statistics
reveals an increased biosorption capacity for the biomass from
microbial origin. Data presented in Table 1, 2 shows that the biomass
derived from bacteria showed an average metal ion adsorption
capacity of 132.2 mg/g ranging from 12.23 to 567.7 mg/g. Biosorption
capacity greater than 100 mg/g is demonstrated by the gram positive
bacterial species of Bacillus, Corynebacterium, Streptomyces and
Staphylococcus sp. [105, 107, 109, 110, 116]. Fungal biomass
showed a very low average biosorption capacity of 42.99 mg/g
ranging from 6.34 to 204 mg/g. Algal biomass on the other hand
had an average metal removal capacity of 113.5mg/g ranging from
10.60 to 357 mg/g. Irrespective of the metal ions, among all species
of algal biomass, the brown algae for example Cystoseira baccata,
Sargassum sp. have exhibited the highest biosorption capacity
[130, 134, 138-142, 148]. Cellulosic material showed 69.38 mg/g
average metal ion adsorption capacity with a range from 2.18
to 2,000 mg/g. Irrespective of the metal ions, the incidences of
biosorbents from microbial and cellulosic origin reporting a bio-
sorption capacity greater than 100 mg/g are 25 (32%) and 15 (12.9%)
respectively. But the incidences of the same in the range less
than 100 mg/g are 53 (67%) and 116 (87%) Thus biosorbents like
the algae and bacteria showed very high adsorption capacity there-
by could be used in industrial applications. In fact to qualify
a biosorbent for industrial application requires it to have not only
high adsorption capacity, but also should have characteristics like
wide spread availability, economical viability and capacity to be
regenerated [26, 172]. But the fungal biosorbents and certain agri-
cultural residues showed very less biosorption capacity. Various
researchers have carried out modification of the biosorbents either
by physical or chemical methods with a view to improve its metal
removal capacity.
A critical analysis of these two major classes of biomass as
biosorbent for metal ions reveals that their chemical and physical
characteristics have a contributory role.
2.1. Cellulosic Materials as Metal Biosorbents
Agricultural and plant based by-products have showed good bio-
sorption potential for heavy metal ions like Cd(II), Cu(II), Cr(III),
Cr(VI), Pb(II), Hg(II), Zn(II), etc. as is evident from the biosorption
capacities in Table 1. Various researchers have demonstrated good
biosorption potential in biomass like rice bran, rice husk, wheat
bran and husk, saw dust, bark, groundnut shells, coconut shells,
hazelnut shells, walnut shells, cotton seed hulls, waste tea leaves,
maize corn cob, apple, banana, orange peels, soybean hulls, grapes
stalks, water hyacinth, sugar beet pulp, sunflower stalks, coffee
beans, cotton stalks, etc. Irrespective of the metal ions, rice and

5
V. K. Gupta et al.

Table 2. Biosorption Capacities of Various Biomass of Microbial Origin for Removal of Toxic Metal Ions from Waste Water
Metal ions Biomass source Maximum capacity (mg/g) Reference
Biomass type : Bacteria
Pb(II) Corynebacterium glutamicum 567.7 [105]
Pb(II) Enterobacter sp. 50.9 [106]
Pb(II) Pseudomonas putida 270.4 [107]
Pb(II) Streptomyces rimosus 135 [108]
Pb(II) Thiobacillus ferrodoxins 443.00 [109]
Zn(II) Thiobacillus ferrooxidans 172.4 [110]
Zn(II) Cyanobacterium 71.42 [111]
Cu(II) Enterobacter sp. 32.5 [106]
Cu(II) Pseudomonas putida 96.9 [107]
Cu(II) Streptomyces coelicolor 66.7 [112]
Cu(II) Thiobacillus ferrooxidans 39.8 [110]
Cu(II) Pseudomonas p. 89.60 [113]
Cu(II) Sphigomonas p. 50.10 [114]
Cd(II) Aeromonas caviae 155.3 [115]
Cd(II) Enterobacter sp. 46.2 [106]
Cd(II) Pseudomonas sp. 278.0 [116]
Cd(II) Staphylococcus xylosus 250.0 [116]
Cd(II) Streptomyces rimosus 64.9 [108]
Cd(II) Pseudomonas f. 66.25 [117]
Cr(IV) Aeromonas caviae 284.4 [115]
Cr(IV) Bacillus thuringiensis 83.3 [118]
Cr(IV) Pseudomonas sp. 95.0 [116]
Cr(IV) Staphylococcus xylosus 143.0 [116]
Cr(VI) Actinomycete sp. 32.63 [119]
Cr(VI) Chrococcus 21.36 [120]
Cr(VI) N. calicola 12.23 [120]
Ni(II) Bacillus thuringiensis 45.9 [121]
Ni(II) Actinomycete sp. 36.55 [119]
Biomass : Fungi
Hg(II) Tolypocladium sp. (residue from fermentation industry) 161.1 [122]
Cd(II) Saccharomyces cerevisiae (waste brewer’s yeast) 15.4 [123]
Cd(II) Baker’s yeast (lab cultured) 11.63 [124]
Cd(II) Phomopsis sp. (lab cultured) 29 [125]
Pb(II) Saccharomyces cerevisiae (waste brewer’s yeast) 85.6 [123]
Pb(II) Penicillium chrysogenum (lab cultured) 204 [126]
Pb(II) Penicillium oxalicum (residue from fermentation industry) 47.4 [122]
Ni(II) Saccharomyces cerevisiae (waste brewer’s yeast) 6.34 [123]
Ni(II) Penicillium chrysogenum (lab cultured) 55 [126]
Ni(II) Penicillium chrysogenum (raw) 13.2 [127]
Ni(II) Penicillium chrysogenum (alkaline pre-treatment) 19.2 [127]
Cr(VI) Mucor hiemalis 53.5 [128]
Cu(II) Aspergillus niger 26.0 [129]
Cr(III) Penicillium chrysogenum (raw) 18.6 [127]
Cr(III) Penicillium chrysogenum (alkaline pre-treatment) 27.2 [127]
Cr(III) Saccharomyces cerevisiae (waste brewer’s yeast) 12.8 [123]
Zn(II) Phomopsis sp. (lab cultured) 10.3 [125]
Zn(II) Penicillium chrysogenum (raw) 6.8 [127]
Zn(II) Penicillium chrysogenum (alkaline pre-treatment) 25.5 [127]

6
 Environmental Engineering Research 20(1) 001-018

Metal ions Biomass source Maximum capacity (mg/g) Reference

Biomass : Algae
Hg(II) Cystoseira baccata 329 [130]
Cd(II) Ulva onoi 61.9 [131]
Cd(II) Ulva onoi (NaOH pre-treatment) 90.7 [131]
Cd(II) Gelidium sesquipedale 18.0 [132]
Cd(II) Parthenium hysterophorous 27 [133]
Cd(II) Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleiden biomass 36 [134]
Cd(II) Spirulina 357 [135]
Cd(II) Fucusceranoides 90 [136]
Cd(II) Oedogonium h. 88.90 [137]
Pb(II) Sargassum sp. 303 [138]
Pb(II) Sargassum sp. 266 [139]
Pb(II) Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleiden biomass 137 [134]
Pb(II) Oedogonium h. 145.00 [140]
Pb(II) Spirogyra 140.00 [141]
Pb(II) Nostoc 93.50 [140]
Zn(II) Ulva onoi 74.6 [131]
Cu(II) Sargassum sp. 87.1 [138]
Cu(II) Spirogyra 133.30 [142]
Cr(VI) U. lactuca (dry) 10.61 [143]
Cr(VI) U. lactuca (activated) 112.36 [143]
Cr(VI) Oedogonium h. (raw) 31 [144]
Cr(VI) Oedogonium h. (acid activated) 35.2 [144]
Cr(VI) Nostoc 22.92 [145]
Cr(VI) Spirogyra 14.70 [146]
Ni(II) Sargassum sp. 71.6 [147]
Ni(II) Sargassum (acid treated) 250.00 [148]
Ni(II) Sargassum (raw) 181.00 [148]
Ni(II) Oedogonium h. (acid treated) 44.20 [149]
Ni(II) Oedogonium h. (raw) 40.90 [149]

wheat based biomass have demonstrated high biosorption capacity
as is seen in Table 1. Research studies have demonstrated high
carbon, low ash content and reasonable hardness in such
biosorbents. Researchers have also identified the presence of differ-
ent components and features in such biomass which have been
contributory to the uptake of heavy metal ions from aqueous sol-
utions [27, 30, 31]. Cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin were found
to be the major components in rice and wheat based products
but the proportion of such components was found to vary in each
[163, 164, 165]. Rice based biomass showed a proportion of 32.24%
cellulose, 21.34% hemicelluloses, 21.44% lignin whereas wheat
based biomass revealed 39% cellulose, 35% hemicelluloses and
14% lignin [173-175]. Basso et al and Qaiser et al have proved
that cellulose has good metal uptake properties [176, 177]. The
presence of cellulose and hemicelluloses in agricultural and plant
biomass hasthus improved their biosorption potential. Other agri-
cultural precursors like tea, coffee, shells, nuts and seeds of various
fruits, etc. were found to have cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin
[177, 178]. Researchers have made elaborate studies via techniques
like Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) and Raman spectroscopy,
electron dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), X-ray photoelectron spec-
troscopy (XPS), electron microscopy (scanning and/or trans-
mission), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), X-ray diffraction
analysis (XRD) on various biosorbents like moringaoleifera bark
[95], rhizophora apiculata tannin [83], rice husk ash [90], raw
coffee powder [55], hazel nut shell [97], peanut hull pellet [78],
mango peel [50], etc. in order to elucidate the mechanism of
metal binding onto such biosorbents. Different functional groups
like carbonyl (ketone), carboxyl, sulfhydryl (thiol), sulfonate, thio-
ether, amine, alcohols, esters, etc. were identified. Such functional
groups were able to bind with metal ions through replacement
of hydrogen ions with metal ions in solution or by donation of
an electron pair from these groups to form complexes with metal
ions in solution. The mechanism identified were thus chem-
isorption, complexation, ion exchange, chelation, physical adsorp-
tion [177, 178]. Sawdust of various tree species in its virgin form
revealed a cellulose–lignin polymeric structure as illustrated by
Shukla et al. [159]. The analysis of surface properties showed
that the metal binding sites were mainly composed of phenolic
and alcohol hydroxyl.

7
V. K. Gupta et al.
2.2. Microbial Materials as Metal Biosorbents
The efficiency and the mechanism of the uptake of metal ions
onto the microbes depend on the cellular surface of the microbes
[23]. This is because the biosorption is a surface phenomenon.
The mechanism of metal binding as documented by various re-
views involves the interaction and exchange of metal ions fol-
lowed by complex formation with the metal ions on the reactive
chemical sites on the surface of the microbial cell followed by
ion [29-31, 171, 172]. This is finally followed by precipitation
of excess metal ions on the cell surface. The components of
the cell wall are known to vary among the different microbes.
Keeping in view the role of microbial cell wall in the biosorption
of metal ions, a critical analysis on the cell wall components
of different microorganisms would help in assessing and explain-
ing the different metal uptake capacity as observed in different
microbial community [172]. All species of bacteria have a cell
wall composed of a linear polymer called the peptidoglycan.
It accounts for 40-90% of the bacterial cell wall [150]. The core
of the peptidoglycan is multilayered containing a peptide cross
bridge while the adjacent glycan units are cross linked via amino
acids like D-glutamic acid, D-alanine, and meso-di-aminopimelic
acid. Cross-bridging between the peptide chains is a common
feature of the bacterial cell wall. The frequency of cross bridging
is close to 100% as in Staphylococcus aureus whereas it is 30%
in a gram negative bacteria like E-Coli. The cross bridging is
nearly absent in many gram negative bacteria. The peptidoglycan
in gram positive bacteria also contains large amounts of teichoic
acids, polymers of glycerol or ribitol joined by phosphate groups.
Whereas the peptidoglycan cell wall in gram negative bacteria
is composed of phospholipids, lipopolysaccharides, enzymes,
glycoproteins and lipoproteins. Such components of the bacterial
cell wall were found to be actively involved as metal binding
sites [179]. The glycoproteins and lipoproteins were found to
2+
play a contributory role in Cd ion uptake of both gram negative
and gram positive bacteria [116]. Some of the other potential
metal binding sites on the cell wall were found to be lipoproteins,
techoic acid, teichouronic acid, peptidoglycan, amino, carbox-
ylate, phosphoryl groups of phospholipids, etc. Extensive studies
as reviewed [150] have demonstrated the role of such groups
on the bacterial cell in the binding sites of metal cations [150].
Fungal cell wall is rigid and is composed of approximately 80-90%
chitin which is a nitrogen containing polysaccharide [151, 152].
Proteins, lipids, polyphosphates and inorganic ions are also con-
stituents of the fungal cell wall [180]. Cellulose is the principal
component of all classes of algae [156, 157, 179]. Sulphated poly-
saccharides are present in the cell wall of both brown and red
algae but is absent in green algae. A higher proportion of proteins
are bonded to the polysaccharides in the cell wall of green algae.
The cell wall of brown algae contains alginic acid and the corre-
sponding salts of sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium
[179]. Thus the potential metal binding sites on the bacterial
cell wall are the peptidoglycan, teichoic acids and lipoteichoic
acids. Whereas chitin, proteins and phosphates are the principal
active sites on the fungal cell wall, cellulose, alginate and glycan
in algal cell wall proved to play a very important role in metal
binding [179].
8
3. Biosorption Mechanism
Due to the complex nature of the cell wall of the microbial biomass,
the mechanism of the biosorption process is not well understood.
The process can take place via many mechanisms depending on
the speciation of the metal ion, the source of biomass and its
processing to biosorbent [29-31, 171, 172]. Various reviews have
highlighted that metal binding to the microbial cell wall follows
complex mechanisms like the ion exchange, chelation and
adsorption. This can be followed by the deposition of metal ion
in the inter- and intra-fibrillar capillaries and spaces of the struc-
tural polysaccharide or peptidoglycan network as a result of the
concentration gradient and diffusion through cell walls and
membranes. With the help of sophisticated techniques like the
Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) and the Raman spectroscopy,
nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR), electron spin
resonance (ESR) spectroscopy, and X-ray absorption spectroscopy
(XAS), which includes X-ray absorption near-edge (XANES) and
extended X-ray fine structure (EXAFS) spectroscopy, and X-ray
reflectivity, researchers have identified the key functional groups
present in the biomass cell surface in the biosorption process
[50, 51]. These are the hydroxyl groups of polysaccharides, sulph-
ated polysaccharides, uronic acids and the amino acids, the ketone
group in peptide bonds, carboxyl groups in uronic acid and amino
acid, sulphydryl (thiol) group in sulphated polysaccharides, thio-
ethers and amines in amino acids, imine and immidazole in amino
acids, phosphonate in phospholipids, and phosphordiester in te-
choic acid and lipopolysaccharides [30, 179-181]. A review of
the acidity constants of such functional groups reveals that the
biomass surface charge is predominantly negative at pH 3-10.
This has been verified by Volesky and Holan [30]. Over this entire
pH range, the ligands of each such group identified as the O,
S, N and P were known to easily bind with the cationic metals
ions facilitating electrostatic interactions. The biosorbent behavior
for metallic ions is thus a function of the chemical make-up of
the microbial cells of which it consists as verified by the works
of Volesky and Holan [30]. But the presence of favourable functional
groups on the microbial cell wall does not guarantee the binding
of metal ions because stearic, conformational and other external
factors could be operative. The pH of the aqueous medium is
known to affect the biosorption process and the operative under-
lying mechanisms; thereby affecting the capacity of the biomass
for metal uptake [158]. The metal adsorbates undergo ionization
as well as there is a change in solubility as a result of the pH
of the aqueous medium. The functional groups on the biomass
surface too undergo protonation and deprotonation as a result
of the increased acidity or basicity of the aqueous medium. Thus
at higher solution pH, the solubility of metal ions decreases leading
to precipitation and complication of the biosorption process. Also,
as a result of the protonation of the functional groups on the
biomass surface, more protons are released resulting in lowering
of pH in aqueous medium. Excess protons too results in increased
competition with the metal cations and subsequent lesser
biosorption. It is thus essential to maintain a constant pH during
the biosorption process as maximum and faster uptake takes place
in the initial phases. An exhaustive review of literature reveals
that irrespective of the biomass type and source, the pH at which

maximum biosorption occurs depends on the speciation of metal
ion at that pH. Ni(II), Cd(II), Pb(II) and Zn(II) are known to exist
in their bivalent form at pH values of ≤ 6.5, 8, 7 and 8 respectively.
Perusal of literature revealed that maximum biosorption of such
metal ions occurred for Ni(II), Cd(II), Pb(II) and Zn(II) at pH values
of 5-7, 6-7, 5-7 and 4-8 respectively [182]. Optimum pH for Cr(VI)
occurred at pH 1-5, due to the strong electrostatic interaction with
－
the HCrO4 species.
4. Design of Better Biosorbents
The biosorption process is typically a surface phenomenon in
which the cell wall components of the biomass have a direct
involvement, as discussed earlier. The use of biosorbents in their
native form has demonstrated various shortfalls on account of
their low biosorption capacity as well as variable physical stability
[169, 170, 183]. Various researchers have focused on modifying
the biomass surface via chemicals so as to achieve both structural
durability as well as efficient biosorption capacity for heavy metal
ions. Results with respect to the maximum biosorption capacity
have been promising not only with the plant based biomass but
also with microbial biomass. This is revealed from data presented
in Table 1 [34-38, 49, 50, 54, 58, 59, 63, 74, 75, 87, 88, 92, 93,
98] and Table 2 [131, 143, 144, 148, 149]. Analyses and reviews
have revealed that surface modification of biomass have brought
about significant changes in their hydrophobicity, water sorbency,
ion exchange capability, resistance to microbiological attack and
thermal resistance. Methods employed for modification of cell
surface are the physical pre-treatments which include heating/boil-
ing, freezing/thawing, drying, autoclaving and lyophilization. The
chemical treatments used for surface modification by various work-
ers have been identified as washing with detergents, alkaline sol-
utions (sodium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, sodium carbonate)
mineral and organic acid solutions (hydrochloric acid, nitric acid,
sulphuric acid, tartaric acid, citric acid, thioglycollic acid), organic
compounds (ethylenediamine, formaldehyde, epichlorohydrin,
methanol), oxidizing agent (hydrogen peroxide), etc. Such
pre-treatments helped in modifying the surface functional groups
either by removing or masking the groups or by exposing more
metal binding sites. Amination of hydroxyl and carboxyl group,
carboxylation and phosphorylation of hydroxyl group, carbox-
ylation of amine group, saponification of ester group, sulfonation,
xanthanation, thiolation, halogenation, oxidation, etc. have re-
sulted in enhancement of biosorptive efficiency. This has been
corroborated by earlier works of Vieira and Volesky [184]. Various
biomasses irrespective of their source like pine bark, Spirogyra,
rose petals, rubber leaves, walnut shell and sawdust showed prom-
ising biosorption capacities with alkaline pre-treatment. [185-190].
Calcium oxide pre-treatment provided strong basic sites on the
surface of date pit (Phoenix dactylifera) causing higher biosorption
for positively charged Cu(II) and Ni(II) from aqueous suspension
[191]. Another factor responsible for higher biosorption capacity
of the pretreated biosorbents was its greater mesoporous surface
area of 645.5 cm3/g. KOH proved to be the most promising alkaline
activating agent in producing efficient biosorbents for Ni(II) and
Zn(II) from bamboo as investigated by Lalhruaitluang et al. [192].
9
Environmental Engineering Research 20(1) 001-018
KOH pre-treatment have resulted in the incorporation of favourable
functional groups but also have helped in the increase in micropore
volume and increase in surface area. In yet another example, alkali
modified rice husk showed faster kinetics as well as higher bio-
sorption for Cd(II) than the virgin rice husk [35]. The higher bio-
sorption of modified rice husk (125.94 mg/g) was attributed to
the surface structural changes of the biosorbent. Acid treatment
too has resulted in the better biosorption behaviors of the
biosorbents. For example, rice husk was modified by various organ-
ic acids like citric acid, salicylic acid, tartaric acid, oxalic acid,
mandelic acid, maleic and nitrilotriacetic acid and were tested
for biosorption of lead and copper. Tartaric acid modified rice
husk demonstrated highest binding capacity but when the same
biosorbent was esterified, it resulted in lesser biosorption for the
same metal ions. The maximum adsorption capacities for Pb(II)
and Cu(II) were reported to be 108.0 and 29.0 mg/g, respectively
[74]. But some researchers have observed a change in surface
texture due to acid pre-treatment which in turn has helped in
improving the biosorption performance. H2SO4 treated wheat bran
[72] showed better biosorption for Cu(II) (51.5 mg/g at pH 5 and
contact time 30 mins) due to increase in its surface area. It was
postulated that there was a significant conversion of macropores
to micropores resulting in higher surface area as a result of the
acid treatment. In yet another example, acid pre-treatment resulted
in oxidation of existing functional groups on corncob based bio-
sorbent resulting in decrease of surface area and surface volume
[193]. Improved biosorption performance due to acid pre-treatment
is also observed due to incorporation of acidic functional groups
[189, 194]. Irrespective of the behavior to metal ions, various bio-
masses have shown better biosorption tendency as a result of
chemical modification. Sha et al. [49] demonstrated that under
identical conditions of pH and contact time, chemically modified
orange peel was a better biosorbent showing a capacity of 70.67
mg/g and 136.05 mg/g for Cu(II) and Cd(II) removals than its un-
modified counterpart. Sawdust of Pinus sylvestris pre-treated with
formaldehyde showed enhanced biosorption for the removal of
Cd(II) and Pb(II) from aqueous solutions [195]. HCl treated sawdust
of Mulberry showed a maximum biosorption capacity of 403.73
mg/g for Cd(II) ions at pH of 6 after a 30 min shaking [196]. Different
complexing groups like the aminoalkyl [197], 2,2-diaminoethyl,
and amidoxime [198], or an ionic moiety such asphosphate [199],
thiolate [200], carboxy [201], and carboxymethyl [202, 203] were
also used for modification of various biomass so as to enhance
their biosorption for heavy metal ion. Observations of improved
biosorption capacity are seen in the case of chemically treated
algal species of Ulva onoi [131], U. lactuca [143], Oedogonium h.
[144] and Sargassum [148]. Fungal species have shown better
metal uptake capacity by alkali treatment whereas acid treatment
of the same biomass almost had no influence on metal biosorption
[183, 203]. Biomass of yeast treated with ethanol recorded highest
biosorption for Cd(II) and Pb(II) as compared to that treated with
NaOH [204]. Similarly, calcium chloride treated biomass of brown
alga F. vesiculosus demonstrated highest biosorption for the re-
moval of copper, cadmium, leadand nickel [205]. Thus it can
be concluded that the functional groups present on the biomass
have favoured the formation of hydrophilic and polar surface there-
by facilitated the uptake or binding of the cationic metal ions.
V. K. Gupta et al.

Besides the direct chemical modification, literature reveals the
grafting of various monomeric units like acrylic acid, acrylamide,
acrylonitrile, ethylenediamine, hydroxylamine, glycidyl mono-
mers, urea, etc. followed by functionalization of the biomass surface
so as to develop a better biosorbent [206-209]. Graft co-polymer-
ization is a process in which an additional polymer is introduced
into the backbone of the main polymeric chain. Literature reveals
that the long polymeric chain of the biomass has been activated
via high energy radiation, photochemical or by chemical so as
to initiate the process of polymerization or grafting. Various studies
have already been carried out in this direction. Details on the
preparation of efficient grafted biosorbents and their effects on
the metal binding capacity are outlined by O’Connell et al. [170].
In a typical example, Grey et al. [210] developed an efficient bio-
sorbent via succinic anhydride grafted wood pulp which showed
a biosorption capacity of 169 mg/g for Cd(II). Wood sawdust was
grafted via acrylonitrile and hydroxylamine and the resulting bio-
sorbents brought about a binding capacity of 246 mg/g for Cu(II)
and 188 mg/g for Ni(II) respectively [211]. Acrylamide, ethylenedi-
amine and succinic anhydride used as grafting agents helped in
designing a better biosorbent from banana stalk by Shibi and
Anirudhan [212] for removal of Hg(II) from waste streams. Grafting
of acrylic acid was also done on the surface of ozone pretreated
P. chrysogenum. The developed biosorbent showed significant in-
crease in the binding of for copper and cadmium. It was postulated
that the higher biosorption was due to the presence of a large
number of carboxyl groups present on the biomass surface and
such groups were converted tocarboxylate ions using NaOH [213].
Metal biosorption has also been enhanced by heat or chemical
sterilization or by crushing. The use of such processes have helped
in increasing the available surface area, thereby resulting in greater
exposure of the biomass surface and more surface binding sites
[214]. The use of microwave assisted chemical activation of various
agricultural biomasses like orange peel, sunflower seed etc. [215]
has resulted in development of refined porous properties and better
surface chemistry [216]. Such biosorbents showed significantly
higher biosorption for metal ions [217, 218].
5. Regeneration of the Biosorbent
The recycling and reuse of the biosorbent for subsequent removal
of metal ions from aqueous medium contributes to the economic
viability of the biosorption process. A desirable factor is that the
desorbing medium used for regeneration of the biomass should
not damage the biosorbent. Besides, the loaded metals onto the
surface of the biomass after biosorption are recovered. Literature
reveals that chemicals like acids like HCl, bases like NaOH and
chelating agents like EDTA have been used for desorption of metal
ions along with simultaneous regeneration of the loaded biosorbent
(Table 3). HCl is widely used as a desorbing chemical bringing
about greater than 90% recovery of metal ions, yet various re-
searches has proved that it brings about simultaneous hydrolysis
of the functional groups present on the biomass. This would result
in loss of biosorption efficiency of the regenerated biosorbent [220].
A detailed observation of Table 3 also highlights the fact that
metal ions like Cd(II), Pb(II), Cu(II) Hg(II) can be eluted via acidic
medium thereby proving beyond doubt that a basic medium would
enhance the biosorption potential of the biomass. This corroborates
our earlier conclusion about the effect of pH on the biosorption
potential. Cr(VI) and Ni(II), on the other hand could be desorbed
using a basic medium as evident from the Table 3 thereby indicating
the requirement of an acidic pH for maximizing biosorption. Table
3 thus highlights the fact that the desorbing medium required
for maximum recovery of metals is dependent on the metal ions
to be recovered but is independent of the biosorbent type and
its source. From such observations, it can be concluded that the
mechanism underlying the biosorption of metal ions is same irre-
spective of the nature, type and source of biosorbent. An ion ex-
change mechanism is operative during the metal uptake process

Table 3. Desorption of Metal Ions and Regeneration of the Biosorbents

Metal ions Desorption medium Biosorbent Source of biomass Cycle Metal recovery (%) Reference
Cd(II) 0.1 M HCl Rice husk Cellulose based 1 98.6 [35]
Cd(II) 0.1 M HCl Baker’s yeast Microbial based 6 95.0 [125]
Cd(II) 0.1 M HCl Oedogonium Sp. Microbial based 5 84.8 [137]
Hg(II) 0.2 M HCl Coir pith Cellulose based 4 98.3 [48]
Hg(II) 0.2 M HCl Coconut button Cellulose based 3 96.5 [222]
Ni(II) 0.1 M NaOH Oedogonium Sp. Microbial based 4 70.0 [148]
Cr(VI) 0.1 M NaOH Oedogonium Sp. Microbial based 4 75.0 [144]
Cr(VI) 0.1 M NaOH Mucor hiemalis Microbial based [128]
Cr(VI) NaOH Wheat bran Cellulose based 1 100 [60]
Cr(VI) 0.1 M EDTA Nostoc muscorum Microbial based 5 90.0 [145]
Pb(II) 0.1 mol/L HCl Nostoc Microbial based 5 90.0 [140]
Pb(II) 0.1 mol/L HCl Oedogonium Microbial based 5 90.0 [140]
Pb(II) 0.1 M HCl Baker’s yeast Microbial based 6 95.0 [125]
Pb(II) Na2EDTA Sargassum Microbial based - 95.0 [139]
Pb(II) 0.2 mol/L HCl Coconut button Cellulose based 3 94.3 [219]
Cu(II) 0.2 mol/L HCl Coconut button Cellulose based 3 97.4 [219]

10

as has been discussed in our earlier work [182]. More than 70%
recovery of metal ions along with the use of biosorbent for a con-
tinuous sorption/desorption for removal of metal ions from waste
streams as evident from Table 3 highlights the economy of the
biosorption process. But although desorption via chemicals results
in regeneration of the biosorbent along with recovery of the metal
ions, yet it results in higher investment cost.
6. Future Prospects
Biosorption of metal ions has been extensively studied as evident
from innumerable research papers. The performance of the several
biosorbents were reviewed and summarized; the major features
are high versatility for wide-range of operational conditions, high
selectivity for metal and not influenced by alkaline earth and
common light metals, independent of concentration (for ≤ 10 ppm
or ≥ 100 ppm), high tolerance to organics, and effective regeneration.
According to Wang and Chen [179], biosorption is a cost-effective
technology for the treatment of complex industrial wastewater
containing high volume and low-concentration heavy metals. Many
natural biosorbents both from cellulosic based and microbial origin
having efficient biosorption characteristics have been identified.
But many of such biosorbents have shown poor performance.
Surface modifications carried out on such biosorbents helped im-
prove their metal binding properties as evident from vast studies
carried out but the modifications increase the overall cost of the
process bringing it closer to the price of commercial ion-exchange
resins. Also, there are instances, when the incorporation of func-
tional groups as a result of chemical modification does not result
in enhanced biosorption which might be due to steric, conforma-
tional or other effects. In spite of such short comings, both native
as well as modified biosorbents have demonstrated their compati-
bility when tested with real industrial effluents. Faster kinetics
and better performance under both laboratory as well as real effluent
conditions as compared to commercial ion exchange resins and
adsorbents are the major advantages of the biosorbents for removal
of heavy metals, but the application of such biosorbents for in-
dustrial scale has not yet become a reality. It is well known
that the biosorption process does not have competition with any
of the other metal removal technologies like ion exchange, reverse
osmosis, precipitation, etc. [30, 221]. Also, a huge market exists
for cheap and efficient biosorbents due to the continuous discharge
of complex metal effluents from industrial activities and simulta-
neous ever increasing environmental regulations. Earlier works
have indicated the development of some commercial biosorbents
by immobilization techniques. For example, AlgaSORB™ was de-
veloped by immobilization of C. vulgaris in silica and poly-
acryamide gels [222] AMT-BIOCLAIMTM similarly comprised of
Bacillus subtilis immobilized onto polyethyleneimine and
glutaraldehyde. The biosorbent Bio-fixwas made up of a variety
of biomass including Sphagnum peat moss, algae, yeast, bacteria,
and/or aquatic flora and immobilized onto high density
polysulphone. Similarly a series ofbiosorbents were produced
based on different types of biomaterial, including the algae S.
natans, A. nodosum, Halimeda opuntia, Palmyra pamata,
Chondruscrispus and C. vulgaris. The preparation of such commer-
11
Environmental Engineering Research 20(1) 001-018
cial biosorbents and their performance has been adequately re-
viewed by eminent researchers [31, 171, 222]. Such biosorbents
showed effective metal removal over a wide pH range and solution
conditions and could remove a wide range of metal ions. The
biosorption process was not affected by the presence of calcium,
magnesium and organics. Moreover the biosorbents resembled
ion exchange resins. Very high biosorption capacity was demon-
strated by such commercial biosorbents [222]. Although extensive
efforts were made for the commercialization of the biosorption
technology, yet it did not attract widespread industrial adoption.
Certain factors inhibiting the widespread industrial application
of the biosorption technology as identified by various researchers
[30, 31, 150, 171, 179, 220, 222] working in this field include:
a. difficulty in obtaining a reliable supply of inexpensive raw
biomass
b. Lower robustness of the biosorbents
c. Non specificity and non selectivity of the biosorbents to the
metal mixture solutions
d. difficulty in regeneration and reuse of the biomass
e. negative effects of co-existing ions on biosorptive capacity
Thus the following features need to be assessed prior to industrial
application:
1) Effluent characteristics :
Biosorption of metal ions is strongly affected by the properties
of the water to be treated, such as pH, ionic strength, coexisting
ions, and suspended solids. An optimal pH of 7 is required for
biosorption of metal cations. The biosorption decreases on lowering
the pH, as acidic media tend to cause protonation of negatively
charged sites on the biosorbents. pH of the aqueous media play
a definite role in affecting the biosorption behavior to metal cations
as the hydrogen ion itself is a tough competitor [223]. Industrial
wastewater contains more than one type of metal ions and the
competition between such metal ions for the limited binding sites
on biosorbents tends to decrease the biosorption. The presence
of Ca, Mg in hard water and Al, Fe in industrial effluents too
may retard biosorption of the target heavy metal pollutants [220].
Also, the industrial waste water tends to have many organic moieties
which may hinder the biosorption process. Thus, the performance
of the biosorbents needs to be assessed in not only a single-metal
solution system but alsomulti-metal and multi-pollutant solution
systems prior to their industrial applications [30]. This evaluation
would clarify at the same time the selectivity of the biosorbents
in metal binding.
2) Biosorbent characteristics (like availability, overall manu-
facturing cost, regenerability and reusability, pollutant specificity,
biosorptive capacity and rate, mechanical stability, etc.) :
The large scale availability of the biosorbent at one particular
location, collection, development and finally transportation to the
wastewater treatment site are some of the important criteria for
economical viability and usability. Agricultural waste by-products
like rice husk etc have shown good metal biosorption capacity.
But their usage as biosorbent in industries would warrant not
only their availability in tones per day but also their continuous
V. K. Gupta et al.
supply. Food processing industries could be a possible alternative
for production of agricultural waste by-products. Although micro-
bial biomass like algae, fungi and bacterial strains showing modest
biosorption capacity are naturally available but their large scale
production is expensive. Continuous supply of filamentous fungi
and yeast for industrial application as biosorbent can be made
possible from large-scale fermentation industries. Irrespective of
their origin, the biosorbents require some modifications before
their application into the real wastewater treatment systems.
Modification of the virgin biosorbent materials not only helps
to impart mechanical strength and resistance to chemical and
microbial degradation but also improves biosorption capacity and
selectivity for target metal pollutants. Physical or chemical mod-
ifications, grafting techniques as well as immobilization techniques
as demonstrated by various research groups have been successful
in enhancing the physico-chemical characteristics of the
biosorbents. But such techniques will obviously increase opera-
tional costs making it unrealistic for industrial applications.
Regeneration and reuse of the biosorbents for further biosorption
of metal ions will definitely make the process more cost effective
on an industrial scale. Dilute acid and alkaline solutions, salt
solutions, andchelating agents such as ethylene-diammine-tetra-
acetic acid (EDTA) solution are reported to be effective in eluting
metals from the metal-laden biosorbents.
Keeping in focus the inhibitions of the biosorption technology
for its adoption in large scale wastewater treatment, the future
prospects look promising on account of two considerations. Firstly,
hybrid technologies comprising various processes like biosorption,
bioreduction, bioprecipitation, electrochemical processes, mem-
brane technology etc may be helpful for treating complex industrial
wastewater in a large-scale and also for simultaneous removal
of organic substances and heavy metal ions in solution. Novel
biosorbents having increased robustness and increased specificity
need to be developed. This could be achieved by immobilization
technique and by optimization of process parameters. Various
researchers have also suggested the development of a better bio-
sorbent from various biomasses [220, 223]. More efforts should
be made in the direction of reuse and recycling of the biosorbent.
7. Conclusions
Biosorption process is thus identified as basically an exchange
of ions where the metal species in aqueous medium is exchanged
for a counter ion attached to the biomass. The promising potential
of the biosorption technology undoubtedly relies on the efficiency
of the various microbial and plant based biomass. Various bio-
masses which are available in plenty and exhibiting good metal
binding characteristics have been identified. A detailed study of
literature has revealed the contributory role of active binding sites
on the peptidoglycan and polysaccharides components of the cell
wall of the biomasses. Besides, the higher metal uptake, the technol-
ogy has numerous other advantages like faster kinetics, high metal
binding over a broad range of pH, temperature and low capital
and operation cost. Various publications have amply proposed
it as a cost effective, green and effective technology which can
be used complimentarily with other traditional metal removal tech-
12
nologies like chemical precipitation, reverse osmosis, membrane
technologies etc. Despite the market requirement for cheaper and
greener treatment technologies and despite the major advantages
of the biosorption technology, it has extremely limited industrial
adoption even when used in conjunction with other conventional
treatment approaches. The presence of multi functional groups
on the biomass surface is responsible for its non selectivity to
a particular metal ion. This non selective, non specific nature
of the biosorbent and lower robustness of the technology is a
major hindrance to its commercialization. Although immobiliza-
tion and granulation has helped in increasing the robustness and
further problems related to separation, yet the non-specific nature
of the biosorbent is not yet been addressed. Future research direc-
tions of the biosorption technology relies on the identification
and designing of better and moreselective biosorbents, more devel-
opment of biosorption modelsand identification of biosorption
mechanisms, and further assessments of the costs of development.
Acknowledgement
Authors are thankful to the Department of Science and Technology,
New Delhi, India, for the financial support under project grant
DST/INT/South Africa/P-03/2014.
References
1. Celik A, Demirbas A. Removal of heavy metal ions from aque-
ous solutions via adsorption onto modified lignin from pulping
wastes. Energ. Source. 2005;27:1167-1177.
2. International occupational safety and health information
centre. Metals. In: Basics of chemical safety, Chapter 7.
Geneva: International labour organization (ILO); 1999.
3. Gonzalez AR, Ndung'u K, Flegal AR. Natural occurrence of
hexavalent chromium in the Aromas red sands aquifer,
California. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005;39:5505-5511.
4. Boening DW. Ecological effects, transport, and fate of mercury:
a general review. Chemosphere 2000;40:1335-1351.
5. Hetherington LE, Brown TJ, Benham AJ, Lusty PAJ, Idoine
NE. World mineral production 2001-2005. Nottingham:
Nottingham British Geological Survey; 2007.
6. Forray FL, Hallbauer DK. A study of the pollution of the
Aries River (Romania) using capillary electrophoresis as ana-
lytical technique. Environ. Geol. 2000;39:1372-1384.
7. Kotas J, Stasicka Z. Chromium occurrence in the environment
and methods of its speciation. Environ. Pollut. 2000;107:263-283.
8. World health organization (WHO). Copper in Drinking-water.
Background document for development of WHO Guidelines
for Drinking-water Quality. 2004.
9. Juttner K, Galla U, Schmieder H, Electrochemical approaches
to environmental problems in the process industry. Electrochim.
Acta 2000;45:2575-2594.
10. Yang XJ, Fane AG, McNaughton S. Removal and recovery
of heavy metals from wastewater by supported liquid
membranes. Water Sci. Technol. 2001;43:341-348.
11. Bose P, Bose MA, Kumar S. Critical evaluation of treatment

strategies involving adsorption and chelation for wastewater
containing copper, zinc, and cyanide. Adv. Environ. Res.
2002;7:179-195.
12. Wingenfelder U, Hansen C, Furrer G, Schulin R. Removal
of heavy metals from mine water by natural zeolites. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2005;39:4606-4613.
13. Dobrevsky I, Todorova-Dimova M, Panayotova T. Electroplating
rinse wastewater treatment by ion exchange. Desalination
1997;108:277-280.
14. Korngold E, Belayev N, Aronov L. Removal of chromates
from drinking water by anion exchangers. Sep. Purif. Technol.
2003;33:179-187.
15. Ahmed S, Chughtai S, Keane MA. The removal of cadmium
and lead from aqueous solution by ion exchange with Na–Y
zeolite. Sep. Purif. Technol. 1998;13:57-64.
16. Cheng RC, Liang S, Wang HC, Beuhler MD. Enhanced coagu-
lation for arsenic removal. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 1994;86:
79-90.
17. Edwards M. Chemistry of arsenic removal during coagulation
and Fe-Mn oxidation. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 1994;86:64-78.
18. Wang LK, Fahey EM, Wu ZC. Dissolved air flotation. In: Wang
LK, Hung YT, Shammas NK, eds. Physicochemical treatment
processes. New Jersey: Humana Press; 2004. p. 431-500.
19. Matis KA, Zouboulis AI, Gallios GP, Erwe T, Blöcher C.
Application of flotation for the separation of metal-loaded
zeolite Chemosphere 2004;55:65-72.
20. Chakravarti AK, Chowdhury SB, Chakrabarty S, Chakrabarty
T, Mukherjee DC. Liquid membrane multiple emulsion proc-
ess of chromium(VI) separation from wastewaters. Colloids
Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Aspects. 1995;103:59-71.
21. Kongsricharoern N, Polprasert C. Chromium removal by a
bipolar electrochemical precipitation process. Water Sci.
Technol. 1996;34:109-116.
22. Dabrowski A. Adsorption ‒ from theory to practice. Adv.
Colloid Int. Sci. 2001;93:135-224.
23. Volesky B. Detoxification of metal-bearing effluents: bio-
sorption for the next century. Hydrometallurgy 2001;59:203-216.
24. Aksu Z. Application of biosorption for the removal of organic
pollutants: a review. Process Biochem. 2005;40:997-1026.
25. Stasinakis AS, Thomaidis NS. Fate and biotransformation
of metal and metalloid species in biological wastewater treat-
ment processes. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010;40:307-364.
26. Tsezos M. Biosorption of metals. The experience accumulated
and the outlook for technology development. Hydrometallurgy
2001;59:241-243.
27. Ahluwalia SS, Goyal D. Microbial and plant derived biomass
for removal of heavy metals from wastewater. Bioresour.
Technol. 2007;98:2243-2257.
28. Ahemad M, Malik A. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals by
zinc resistant bacteria isolated from agricultural soils irrigated
with wastewater. Bacteriology J. 2011;2:12-21.
29. Volesky, B. Biosorption and me. Water Res. 2007;41:4017-4029.
30. Volesky B, Holan ZR. Biosorption of heavy metals. Biotechnol.
Prog. 1995;11:235-250.
31. Volesky B. Introduction. In: Volesky B, eds. Biosorption of
heavy metals. Boca Raton: CRC press; 1990. p. 3-5.
32. Volesky B. Removal and recovery of heavy metals by
13
Environmental Engineering Research 20(1) 001-018
biosorption. In: Volesky B, eds. Biosorption of heavy metals.
Boca Raton: CRC press; 1990. p. 8-43.
33. Volesky B. Advances in biosorption of metals: selection of
biomass types. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 1994;14:291-302.
34. Ajmal M, Rao RAK, Anwar S, Ahamad J, Ahmad R. Adsorption
studies on rice husk: removal and recovery of Cd(II) from
wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2003;86:147-149.
35. Akhtar M, Iqbal S, Kausar A, Bhanger MI, Shaheen MA. An
economically viable method for the removal of selected diva-
lent metal ions from aqueous solutions using activated rice
husk. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2010;75:149-155.
36. Ye H, Zhu Q, Du D. Adsorptive removal of Cd(II) from aqueous
solution using natural and modified rice husk. Bioresour.
Technol. 2010;101:5175-5179.
37. Kumar U, Bandyopadhyay M. Sorption of cadmium from
aqueous solution using pretreated rice husk. Bioresour.
Technol. 2006;97:104-109.
38. El-Shafey EI. Sorption of Cd(II) and Se(IV) from aqueous sol-
ution using modified rice husk. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007;147:
546-555.
39. Zulkali MMD, Ahmad AL, Norulakmal NH. Oryza sativa L.
husk as heavy metal adsorbent: optimization with lead as
model solution. Bioresour. Technol. 2006;97:21-25.
40. Nouri L, Hamdaoui O. Ultrasonication-assisted sorption of
cadmium from aqueous phase by wheat bran. J. Phys. Chem.
A 2007;111:8456-8463.
41. Farooq U, Khan MA, Athar M, Kozinski JA. Effect of mod-
ification of environmentally friendly biosorbent wheat
(Triticum aestivum) on the biosorptive removal of cadmium
(II) ions from aqueous solution. Chem. Eng. J. 2011;171:400-410.
42. Verma B, Shukla NP. Removal of nickel (II) from electroplating
industry by agrowaste carbons. Indian J. Environ. Health
2000;42:145-150.
43. Nouri L, Ghodbane I, Hamdaoui O, Chiha M. Batch sorption
dynamics and equilibrium for the removal of cadmium ions
from aqueous phase using wheat bran. J. Hazard. Mater.
2007;149:115-125.
44. Dang VBH, Doan HD, Dang-Vu T, Lohi A. Equilibrium and
kinetics of biosorption of cadmium (II) and copper (II) ions
by wheat straw. Bioresour. Technol. 2009;100:211-219.
45. Tan G, Xiao D. Adsorption of cadmium ion from aqueous
solution by ground wheat stems. J. Hazard. Mater.
2009;164:1359-1363.
46. Pino GH, Mesquita LMS, Torem ML, Pinto GASP. Biosorption
of cadmium by green coconut shell powder. Miner. Eng.
2006;19:380-387.
47. Kadirvelu K, Namasivayam C. Activated carbon from coconut
coirpith as metal adsorbent: Adsorption of Cd(II) from aqueous
solution. Adv. Environ. Res. 2003;7:471-478.
48. Ho YS, Ofomaja AE. Biosorption thermodynamics of cadmium
on coconut copra meal as biosorbent. Biochem. Eng. J.
2006;30:117-123.
49. Sha L, Xueyi G, Ningchuan F, Qinghua T. Adsorption of
Cu2+ and Cd2+ from aqueous solution by mercapto-acetic
acid modified orange peel. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces
2009;73:10-14.
50. Iqbal M, Saeed A, Zafar SI. FTIR spectrophotometry, kinetics
V. K. Gupta et al.
and adsorption isotherms modeling, ion exchange, and EDX
2+ 2+
analysis for understanding the mechanism of Cd and Pb
removal by mango peel waste. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009;164:
161-171.
51. Memon JR, Memon SQ, Bhanger MI, Zuhra Memon G, El-Turki
A, Allen GC. Characterization of banana peel by scanning
electron microscopy and FT-IR spectroscopy and its use for
cadmium removal. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2008;66:260-265.
52. Anwar J, Shafique U, Waheed-uz-Zaman, Salman M, Dar
A, Anwar S. Removal of Pb(II) and Cd(II) from water by adsorp-
tion on peels of banana. Bioresour. Technol. 2010;101:1752-1755.
53. Saikaew W, Kaewsarn P, Saikaew W. Pomelo peel: agricultural
waste for biosorption of cadmium ions from aqueous solutions.
World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2009;56:287-291.
54. Kahraman S, Dogan N, Erdemoglu S. Use of various agricul-
tural wastes for the removal of heavy metal ions. Inter. J.
Environ. Pollut. 2008;34:275-284.
55. Azouaou N, Sadaoui Z, Djaafri A, Mokaddem H. Adsorption
of cadmium from aqueous solution onto untreated coffee
grounds: Equilibrium, kinetics and thermodynamics. J.
Hazard. Mater. 2010;184:126-134.
56. Cay S, Uyanık A, Özas A. Single and binary component adsorp-
tion of copper (II) and cadmium(II) from aqueous solutions
using tea-industry waste. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2004;38:
273-280.
57. Padmini E, Sridhar S. Effect of pH and contact time on the
uptake of heavy metals from industrial effluents by Pongamia
pinnata Bark. Asian J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Environ. Sci.
2007;9:187-190.
58. Chen S, Yue Q, Gao B, Xu X. Equilibrium and kinetic adsorp-
tion study of the adsorptive removal of Cr(VI) using modified
wheat residue. J. Coll. Interf. Sci. 2010;349:256-264.
59. Farajzadeh MA, Monji AB. Adsorption characteristic of wheat
bran towards heavy metal cations. Separ. Pur. Tech. 2004;38:
197-207.
60. Singh KK, Hasan HS, Talat M, Singh VK, Gangwar SK. Removal
of Cr(VI) from aqueous solutions using wheat bran. Chem.
Eng. J. 2009;151:113-121.
61. Wang XS, Chen LF, Li FY, Chen KL, Wan WY, Tang YJ.
Removal of Cr (VI) with wheat-residue derived black carbon:
Reaction mechanism and adsorption performance. J. Hazard.
Mater. 2010;175:816-822.
62. Memon JR, Memon SQ, Bhanger MI, El-Turki, A, Hallam
KR, Allen GC. Banana peel: a green and economical sorbent
for the selective removal of Cr(VI) from industrial wastewater.
Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2009;70:232-237.
63. Babel S, Kurniawan TA. Cr(VI) removal from synthetic waste-
water using coconut shell charcoal and commercial activated
carbon modified with oxidizing agents and/or chitosan.
Chemosphere 2004;54:951-967.
64. Anandkumar J, Mandal B. Removal of Cr(VI) from aqueous
solution using Bael fruit (Aegle marmelos correa) shell as
an adsorbent. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009;168:633-640.
65. Dubey SP, Gopal K. Adsorption of chromium (VI) on low
cost adsorbents derived from agricultural waste material: a
comparative study. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007;145:465-470.
66. Pehlivan E, Altun T. Biosorption of chromium (VI) ion from
14
aqueous solutions using walnut, hazelnut and almond shell.
J. Hazard. Mater. 2008;155:378-384.
67. Sarin V, Pant KK. Removal of chromium from industrial waste
by using eucalyptus bark. Bioresour. Technol. 2006;97:15-20.
68. Basci N, Kocadagistan E, Kocadagistan B. Biosorption of cop-
per (II) from aqueous solutions by wheat shell. Desalination
2004;164:135-140.
69. Wang XS, Li ZZ, Sun C. A comparative study of removal
of Cu(II) from aqueous solutions by locally low-cost materials:
marine macroalgae and agricultural by-products. Desalination
2009;235:146-159.
70. Dupont L, Bouanda J, Dumonceau J, Aplincourt M. Biosorption
of Cu(II) and Zn(II) onto a lignocellulosic substrate extracted
from wheat bran. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2005;2:165-168.
71. Aydın H, Bulut Y, Yerlikaya C. Removal of copper (II) from
aqueous solution by adsorption onto low-cost adsorbents.
J. Environ. Manag. 2008;87:37-45.
72. Ozer A, Ozer D, Ozer A. The adsorption of copper (II) ions
on to dehydrate wheat bran (DWB): determination of the
equilibrium and thermodynamic parameters. Process Biochem.
2004;39:2183-2191.
73. Quek SY, Wase DAJ, Forster CF. The use of sago waste for
the sorption of lead and copper. Water Sa. 1998;24:251-256.
74. Wong KK, Lee CK, Low KS, Haron MJ. Removal of Cu and
Pb by tartaric acid modified rice husk from aqueous solutions.
Chemosphere 2003;50:23-28.
75. Moreno-Piraján JC, Giraldo L. Activated carbon obtained
by pyrolysis of potato peel for the removal of heavy metal
copper (II) from aqueous solutions. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis.
2011;90:42-47.
76. Iqbal M, Saeed A, Kalim I. Characterization of adsorptive
capacity and investigation of mechanism of Cu2+, Ni2+ and
2+
Zn adsorption on mango peel waste from constituted metal
solution and genuine electroplating effluent. Sep. Sci. Technol.
2009;44:3770-3791.
77. Zhu CS, Wang LP, Chen W. Removal of Cu(II) from aqueous
solution by agricultural by-product: peanut hull. J. Hazard.
Mater. 2009;168:739-746.
78. Johnson PD, Watson MA, Brown J, Jefcoat IA. Peanut hull
pellets as a single use sorbent for the capture of Cu(II) from
wastewater. Waste Manag. 2002;22:471-480.
79. Mohammad M, Maitra S, Ahmad N, Bustam A, Sen TK, Dutta
BK. Metal ion removalfrom aqueous solution using physic
seed hull. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010;179:363-372.
80. Yao ZY, Qi JH, Wang LH. Equilibrium, kinetic and thermody-
namic studies on the biosorption of Cu(II) onto chestnut shell.
J. Hazard. Mater. 2010;174:137-143.
81. Vázquez G, Calvo M, Freire MS, González-Alvarez J, Antorrena
G. Chestnut shell as heavy metal adsorbent: optimization
study of lead, copper and zinc cations removal. J. Hazard.
Mater. 2009;172:1402-1414.
82. Mohan S, Sumitha K. Removal of Cu (II) by Adsorption Using
Casuarina Equisetifolia Bark. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2008;25:497-506.
83. Oo CW, Kassim MJ, Pizzi A. Characterization and performance
of Rhizophora apiculata mangrove polyflavonoid tannins in
the adsorption of copper(II) and lead(II). Ind. Crops Prod.
2009;30:152-161.

84. Amarasinghe BMWPK, Williams RA. Tea waste as a low cost
adsorbent for the removal of Cu and Pb from wastewater.
Chem. Eng. J. 2007;132:299-309.
85. Parab H, Joshi S, Shenoy N, Lali A, Sarma US, Sudersanan
M. Determination of kinetic and equilibrium parameters of
the batch adsorption of Co(II), Cr(III) and Ni(II) onto coir
pith. Process Biochem. 2006;41:609-615.
86. Bhatnagar A, Minocha AK, Sillanpää M. Adsorptive removal
of cobalt from aqueous solution by utilizing lemon peel as
biosorbent. Biochem. Eng. J. 2010;48:181-186.
87. El-Shafey EI. Removal of Zn(II) and Hg(II) from aqueous sol-
ution on a carbonaceous sorbent chemically prepared from
rice husk. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010;175:319-327.
88. Zabihi M, Ahmadpour A, Asl AH. Removal of mercury from
water by carbonaceous sorbents derived from walnut shell.
J. Hazard. Mater. 2009;167:230-236.
89. Anirudhan TS, Divya L, Ramachandran M. Mercury (II) re-
moval from aqueous solutions and wastewaters using a novel
cation exchanger derived from coconut coir pith and its
recovery. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008;157:620-626.
90. Naiya TK, Bhattacharya AK, Mandal S, DasSK. The sorption
of lead(II) ions on rice husk ash. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009;163:
1254-1264.
91. Bulut Y, Baysal Z. Removal of Pb(II) from wastewater using
wheat bran. J. Environ. Manage. 2006;78:107-113.
92. Kadirvelu K, Namasivayam C. Agricultural by-product as met-
al adsorbent: Sorption of lead(II) from aqueous solution onto
coirpith carbon. Environ. Technol. 2000;21:1091-1097.
93. Zuorro A, Lavecchia R. Adsorption of Pb(II) on spent leaves
of green and black tea. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 2010;7:153-159.
94. Boudrahem F, Aissani-Benissad F, Aït-Amar H. Batch sorption
dynamics and equilibrium for the removal of lead ions from
aqueous phase using activated carbon developed from coffee
residue activated with zinc chloride. J. Environ. Manag.
2009;90:3031-3039.
95. Reddy DHK, Seshaiah K, Reddy AVR., Rao MM, Wang MC.
Biosorption of Pb2+ from aqueous solutions by Moringa olei-
fera bark: equilibrium and kinetic studies. J. Hazard. Mater.
2010;174:831-838.
96. Sekhar MC. Removal of lead from aqueous effluents by adsorp-
tion on coconut shell carbon. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2008;50:
137-140.
97. Pehlivan E, Altun T, Cetin S, Bhanger MI. Lead sorption
by waste biomass of hazelnut and almond shell. J. Hazard.
Mater. 2009;167:1203-1208.
98. Subbaiah MV, Vijaya Y, Kumar NS, Reddy AS, Krishnaiah
A. Biosorption of nickel from aqueous solutions by Acacia
leucocephala bark: Kinetics and equilibrium studies. Colloids
and Surf. B Biointerfaces 2009;74:260-265.
99. Ajmal M, Rao RAK, Ahmad R, Ahmad J. Adsorption studies
on Citrus reticulate (fruit peel of orange): removal and recovery
of Ni(II) from electroplating wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater.
2000;79:117-131.
100. Bhatnagar A, Minocha AK. Biosorption optimization of nickel
removal from water using Punica granatum peels waste.
Colloids and Surf. B Biointerfaces 2010;76:544-548.
101. Ramana DKV, Jamuna K, Satyanarayana B, Venkateswarlu
15
Environmental Engineering Research 20(1) 001-018
B, Rao MM, Seshaiah K. Removal of heavy metals from aqueous
solutions using activated carbon prepared from Cicer
arietinum. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 2010;92:1447-1460.
102. Ahluwalia SS, Goyal D. Removal of heavy metals by waste
tea leaves from aqueous solution. Eng. Life Sci. 2005;5:158-162.
103. Amuda OS, Giwa AA, Bello IA. Removal of heavy metal from
industrial wastewater using modified activated coconut shell
carbon. Biochem. Eng. J. 2007;36:174-181.
104. Wasewar KL, Atif M, Prasad B, Mishra IM. Batch adsorption
of zinc on tea factory waste. Desalination 2009;244:66-71.
105. Choi SB, Yun YS. Lead biosorption by waste biomass of
Corynebacterium glutamicum generated from lysine fermenta-
tion process. Biotechnol. Lett. 2004;26:331-336.
106. Lu WB, Shi JJ, Wang CH, Chang JS. Biosorption of lead, copper
and cadmium by an indigenous isolate Enterobacter sp. J1
possessing high heavy-metal resistance. J. Hazard. Mater.
2006;134:80-86.
107. Uslu G, Tanyol M. Equilibrium and thermodynamic parame-
ters of single and binary mixture biosorption of lead(II) and
copper(II) ions onto Pseudomonas putida: effect of temperature.
J. Hazard. Mater. 2006;135:87-93.
108. Selatnia A, Bakhti MZ, Madani A, Kertous L, Mansouri Y.
Biosorption of Cd2+ fromaqueous solution by a NaOH-treated
bacterial dead Streptomyces rimosus biomass. Hydrometallurgy
2004;75:11-24.
109. Rodelo G, Gómez A, Ruiz-Manríquez A. Biosorption of Pb(II)
by Thiobacillus ferrooxidans. Rev. Int. Contam. Ambient.
2002;18:33-37.
110. Liu HL, Chen BY, Lan YW, Cheng YC. Biosorption of Zn(II)
and Cu(II) by the indigenous Thiobacillus thiooxidans. Chem.
Eng. J. 2004;97:195-201.
111. Gaur N, Dhankhar R. Removal of Zn+2 ions from aqueous
solution using anabaena variabilis: Equilibrium and kinetic
studies. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2009;3:605-616.
112. Ozturk A, Artan T, Ayar A. Biosorption of nickel(II) and cop-
per(II) ions from aqueous solution by Streptomyces coelicolor
A3(2). Colloid Surf. B Biointerfaces 2004;34:105-111.
113. Zheng GH, Wang L, Zhou Q, Li FT. Optimisation of cell
surface and structural components for improving adsorption
capacity of Pseudomonas putida 5-x to Cu2+. Inter. J. Environ.
Pollut. 2008;34:285-296.
114. Wang XS, Huang LP, Li Y, Chen J. Removal of copper(II)
ions from aqueous solution using sphingomonas paucimob-
olis biomass. Adsorption Sci. Tech. 2010;28:137-147.
115. LoukidouMX, Karapantsios TD, Zouboulis AI, MatisKA.
Diffusion kinetic study of cadmiurn(II) biosorption by
Aeromonas caviae. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2004;79:711-719.
116. Ziagova M, Dimitriadis G, Aslanidou D, Papaioannou X,
Tzannetaki EL, Liakopoulou-Kyriakides M. Comparative
study of Cd(II) and Cr(VI) biosorption on Staphylococcus xylo-
sus and Pseudomonas sp. in single and binary mixtures.
Bioresour. Technol. 2007;98:2859-2965.
117. Yu CL, Lu ZP, Ge FZ, Zhao EL. Biosorption of cadmium
onto Pseudomonas fluorescens: Application of isotherm and
kinetic models. Adv. Mat. Res. 2011;171-172:49-52.
118. Sahin Y, Ozturk A. Biosorption of chromium (VI) ions from
aqueous solution by the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis.
V. K. Gupta et al.
Process Biochem. 2005;40:1895-1901.
119. Congeevaram S, Dhanarani S, Park J, Dexilin M, Thamaraiselvi
K. Biosorption of chromium and nickel by heavy metal re-
sistant fungal and bacterial isolates. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007;
146:270-277.
120. Anjana K, Kaushik A, Kiran B, Nisha R. Biosorption of Cr(VI)
by immobilized biomass of two indigenous strains of cyano-
bacteria isolated from metal contaminated soil. J. Hazard.
Mater. 2007;148:383-386.
121. Ozturk A. Removal of nickel from aqueous solution by the
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007;147:
518-523.
122. Svecova L, Spanelova M, Kubal M, Guibal E. Cadmium, lead
and mercury biosorption on waste fungal biomass issued from
fermentation industry. I. Equilibrium studies. Sep. Purif.
Technol. 2006;52:142-153.
123. Chen C, Wang J. Influence of metal ionic characteristics on
their biosorption capacity by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007;74:911-917.
124. Yu J, Tong M, Sun X, Li B. Cystine-modified biomass for
Cd(II) and Pb(II) biosorption. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007;143:
277-284.
125. Saiano F, Ciofalo M, Cacciola SO, Ramirez S. Metal ion adsorp-
tion by Phomopsis sp. biomaterial in laboratory experiments
and real wastewater treatment. Water Res. 2005:39;2273-2280.
126. Deng S, Ting YP. Characterization of PEI-modified biomass
and biosorption of Cu(II), Pb(II) and Ni(II). Water Res. 2005;
39:2167-2177.
127. Tan TW, Cheng P. Biosorption of metal ions with Penicillium
chrysogenum. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2003;104:119-128.
128. Tewari N, Vasudevan P, Guha BK. Study on biosorption of
Cr(VI) by Mucor hiemalis. Biochem. Eng. J. 2005;23:185-192.
129. Mukhopadhyay M, Noronha SB, Suraishkumar GK. Kinetics
modeling for the biosorption of copper by pretreated
Aspergillus niger biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2007;98:1781-1787.
130. Herrero R, Lodeiro P, Rey-Castro C, Vilarino T, de Vicente
MES. Removal of inorganic mercury from aqueous solutions
by biomass of the marine macroalga Cystoseira baccata. Water
Res. 2005;39:3199-3210.
131. Suzuki Y, Kametani T, Maruyama T. Removal of heavy metals
from aqueous solution by nonliving Ulva seaweed as
biosorbent. Water Res. 2005;39:1803-1808.
132. Vilar VJP, Botelho CMS, Boaventura RAR. Equilibrium and
kinetic modeling of Cd(II) biosorption by algae Gelidium and
agar extraction algal waste. Water Res. 2006;40:291-302.
133. Ajmal M, Rao RAK, Ahmad R, Khan MA. Adsorption studies
on Parthenium hysterophorous weed: removal and recovery
of Cd(II) from wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006;135:242-248.
134. Meitei MD, Prasad MNV. Lead (II) and cadmium (II) bio-
sorption on Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleiden biomass. J.
Environ. Chem. Eng. 2013;1:200-207.
135. Solisio C, Lodi A, Soletto D, Converti A. Cadmium biosorption
on Spirulina platensis biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2008;99:
5933-5937.
136. Herrero R, Cordero B, Lodeiro P, Rey-Castro C, Sastre de
Vicente ME. Interaction of cadmium (II) and protons with
dead biomass of marine algae Fucus sp. Marine Chemistry
16
2006;99:106-116.
137. Gupta VK, Rastogi A. Equilibrium and kinetic modeling of
cadmium (II) biosorption by nonliving algal biomass
Oedogonium sp. from aqueous phase. J. Hazardous Materials
2008;153:759-766.
138. Chen JP, Yang L. Chemical modification of Sargassum sp.
for prevention of organic leaching and enhancement of uptake
during metal biosorption. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2005;44:9931-9942.
139. Martins BL, Cruz CCV, Luna AS, Henriques CA. Sorption
and desorption of Pb2+ ions by dead Sargassum sp. biomass.
Biochem. Eng. J. 2006;27:310-314.
140. Gupta VK, Rastogi A. Biosorption of lead from aqueous sol-
utions by nonliving algal biomass Oedogonium sp. and Nostoc
sp. - a comparative study. Coll. Surfaces B 2008;64:170-178.
141. Gupta VK, Rastogi A. Biosorption of lead from aqueous sol-
utions by green algae Spirogyra species: Kinetics and equili-
brium studies. J. Hazard. Materials. 2008;152:407-414.
142. Gupta VK, Rastogi A, Saini VK. Jain N. Biosorption of copper
(II) from aqueous solutions by algae spirogyra species. J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 2006;296:59-63.
143. El-Sikaily A, El Nemr A, Khaled A, Abdelwehab O. Removal
of toxic chromium from wastewater using green alga Ulva
lactuca and its activated carbon. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007;148:
216-228.
144. Gupta VK, Rastogi A. Biosorption of hexavalent chromium
by raw and acid-treated green alga Oedogonium hatei from
aqueous solutions. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009;163:396-402.
145. Gupta VK, Rastogi A. Sorption and desorption studies of chro-
mium (VI) from nonviable cyanobacterium Nostoc muscorum
biomass. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008;154:347-354.
146. Gupta VK, Srivastava AK, Jain N. Biosorption of chromium
(VI) from aqueous solutions by green algae Spirogyra species.
Water Res. 2001;35:4079-4085.
147. Kalyani S, Srinivasa Rao P, Krishnaiah A. Removal of nickel
(II) from aqueous solutions using marine macroalgae as the
sorbing biomass. Chemosphere 2004;57:1225-1229.
148. Gupta VK, Rastogi A, Nayak A. Biosorption of nickel onto
treated alga (Oedogonium hatei): Application of isotherm and
kinetic models. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2010;342:533-539.
149. Vijayaraghavan K, Padmesh TVN, Palanivelu K, Velan M.
Biosorption of nickel(II) ions onto Sargassum wightii:
Application of two-parameter and three-parameter isotherm
models. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006;133:304-308.
150. Vijayaraghavan K, Yun YS. Bacterial biosorbents and
biosorption. Biotechnol. Adv. 2008;26:266-291.
151. Bishnoi NR, Garima A. Fungus-an alternative for bio-
remediation of heavy metal containing wastewater: a review.
J. Sci. Ind. Res. 2005;64:93-100.
152. Sağ Y. Biosorption of heavy metals by fungal biomass and
modeling of fungal biosorption: a review. Separ. Purif. Reviews
2001;30:1-48.
153. Wang J, Chen C. Biosorption of heavy metals by Saccharomyces
cerevisiae: a review. Biotechnol. Adv. 2006;24:427-451.
154. McHale AP, McHale S. Microbial biosorption of metals: poten-
tial in the treatment of metal pollution. Biotechnol. Adv.
1994;12:647-652.
155. Gupta R, Mohapatra H. Microbial biomass: an economical

alternative for removal of heavy metals from waste water.
Indian J. Exp. Biol. 2003;41:945-966.
156. Wilde EW, Benemann JR. Bioremoval of heavy metals by
the use of microalgae. Biotechnol. Adv. 1993;11:781-812.
157. Mehta SK, Gaur JP. Use of algae for removing heavy metals
ions from wastewater: progress and prospects. Crit. Rev.
Biotechnol. 2005;25:113-152.
158. Romera E, González F, Ballester A, Blázquez ML, Muñoz
JA. Biosorption with algae: a statistical review. Cri. Rev.
Biotechnol. 2006;26:223-235.
159. Shukla A, Zhang YH, Dubey P, Margrave JL, Shukla SS. The
role of sawdust in the removal of unwanted materials from
water. J. Hazard. Mater. 2002;95:137-152.
160. Crini G. Non-conventional low-cost adsorbents for dye re-
moval: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 2006;97:1061-1085.
161. Gerente C, Lee VKC, Le Cloirec P, MaKay G. Application
of chitosan for the removal of metals from wastewaters by
adsorption - mechanisms and models review. Crit. Rev.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007;37:41-127.
162. Suhas P, CarrottMR. Lignin-from natural adsorbent to acti-
vated carbon: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 2007;98:2301-2312.
163. Foo KY, Hameed BH. Utilization of rice husk ash as novel
adsorbent: A judicious recycling of the colloidal agricultural
waste. Adv. Coll. Inter. Sci. 2009;152:39-47.
164. Farooq U, Kozinski JA, Khan MA, Athar M. Biosorption of
heavy metal ions using wheat based biosorbents – A review
of the recent literature. Bioresour. Technol. 2010;101:5043-5053.
165. Demirbas A. Heavy metal adsorption onto agrobased waste
materials: a review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008;157:220-229.
166. Johnson TA, Jain N, Joshi HC, Prasad S. Agricultural and
agro-processing wastes as low cost adsorbents for metal re-
moval from wastewater: a review. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 2008;67:
647-658.
167. Sud D, Mahajan G, Kaur MP. Agricultural waste material
as potential adsorbent for sequestering heavy metal ions from
aqueous solutions-a review. Bioresour. Technol. 2008;99:
6017-6027.
168. Ioannidou O, Zabaniotou A. Agricultural residues as pre-
cursors for activated carbon production-a review. Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev. 2007;11:1966-2005.
169. Ngah WS Wan, Hanafiah MAKM. Removal of heavy metal
ions from wastewater by chemically modified plant wastes
as adsorbents: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2008;99:3935-3948.
170. O’Connell DW, Birkinshaw C, O’Dwyer TF. Heavy metal ad-
sorbents prepared from the modification of cellulose: a review.
Bioresour. Technol. 2008;99:6709-6724.
171. Veglio F, Beolchini F. Removal of metals by biosorption: a
review. Hydrometallurgy 1997;44:301-316.
172. Lesmana SO, Febriana N, Soetaredjo FE, Sunarso J, Ismadji
S. Studies on potential applications of biomass for the separa-
tion of heavy metals. Biochem. Eng. J. 2009;44:19-41.
173. Ahmedna M, Marshall WE, Rao RM. Production of granular
activated carbons from select agricultural by-products and
evaluation of their physical, chemical and adsorption
properties. Bioresour. Technol. 2000;71:113-123.
174. Rahman IA, Ismail J, Osman H. Effect of nitric acid digestion
on organic materials and silica in rice husk. J. Mater. Chem.
17
Environmental Engineering Research 20(1) 001-018
1997;7:1505-1509.
175. Lawther JM, Sun R, Banks WB. Extraction, fractionation and
characterization of structural polysaccharides from wheat
straw. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1995;43:667-675.
176. Basso MC, Cerrella EG, Cukierman AL. Lignocellulosic materi-
als as potential biosorbents of trace toxic metals from
wastewater. Chem. Res. 2002;41:3580-3585.
177. Qaiser S, Saleemi AR, Ahmad MM. Heavy metal uptake by
agro based waste materials. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 2007;10:
409-416.
178. Acemioglu B, Alma MH. Equilibrium studies on adsorption
of Cu(II) from aqueous solution onto cellulose. J. Colloid
Interface Sci. 2001;243:81-84.
179. Wang J, Chen C. Biosorbents for heavy metals removal and
their future. Biotechnol. Adv. 2009;27:195-226.
180. Fourest E, Roux JC. Heavy metal biosorption by fungal mycelial
by-product, mechanisms and influence of pH. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 1992;37:399-403.
181. Davis TA, Volesky B, Mucci A. A review of the biochemistry
of heavy metal biosorption by brown algae. Water Res.
2003;37:4311-4330.
182. Gupta VK, Nayak A, Bhushan B, Agarwal S. A critical analysis
on the efficiency of activated carbons from low-cost precursors
for heavy metals remediation. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Tech.
2015;45:613-668.
183. Kapoor A, Viraraghavan T. Fungal biosorption - an alternative
treatment option for heavy metal bearing wastewaters: a
review. Bioresour. Technol. 1995;53:195-206.
184. Vieira RHSF, Volesky B. Biosorption: a solution to pollution?
Int. Microbiol. 2000;3:17-24.
185. Argun ME, Dursun S, Karatas M. Removal of Cd(II), Pb(II),
Cu(II) and Ni(II) from water using modified pine bark.
Desalination 2009;249:519-527.
186. Afkhami A, Madrakian T, Karimi Z, Amini A. Effect of treat-
ment of carbon cloth with sodium hydroxide solution on
its adsorption capacity for the adsorption of some cations.
Colloids Surf. A 2007;304:36-40.
187. Nasir MH, Nadeem R, Akhtar K, Hanif MA, Khalid AM.
Efficacy of modified distillation sludge of rose (Rosa centifolia)
petals for lead(II) and zinc(II) removal from aqueous solutions.
J. Hazard. Mater. 2007;147:1006-1014.
188. Ngah WSW, Hanafiah MAKM. Biosorption of copper ions
from dilute aqueous solutions on base treatedrubber (Hevea
brasiliensis) leaves powder: kinetics, isotherm, and bio-
sorption mechanisms. J. Environ. Sci. 2008;20:1168-1176.
189. Xie R, Wang H, Chen Y, Jiang W. Walnut shell-based activated
carbon with excellent copper(II) adsorption and lower chro-
mium(VI) removal prepared by acid–base modification.
Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2013;32:688-696.
190. Memon SQ, Memon N, Shah SW, Khuhawar MY, Bhanger
MI. Sawdust–A green and economical sorbent for the removal
of cadmium(II) ions. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007;139:116-121.
191. Danish M, Hashim R, Ibrahim MNM, et al. Sorption of cop-
per(II) and nickel(II) ions from aqueous solutions using cal-
cium oxide activated date (Phoenix dactylifera) stone carbon:
equilibrium, kinetic, and thermodynamic studies. J. Chem.
Eng. Data 2011;56:3607-3619.
V. K. Gupta et al.
192. Lalhruaitluanga H, Prasad MNV, Radha K. Potential of chemi-
cally activated and raw charcoals of Melocanna baccifera
for removal of Ni(II) and Zn(II) from aqueous solutions.
Desalination 2011;271:301-308.
193. El-Hendawy ANA. Influence of HNO3 oxidation on the struc-
ture and adsorptive properties of corncob based activated
carbon. Carbon 2003;41:713-722.
194. Shah J, Jan MR, Haq A, Sadia M. Biosorption of cadmium
from aqueous solution using mulberry wood sawdust: equili-
brium and kinetic studies. Sep. Sci. Tech. 2011;46:1631-1637.
195. Taty-Costodes VC, Fauduet H, Porte C, Delacroix A. Removal
of Cd(II) and Pb(II) ions, from aqueous solutions, by adsorption
onto sawdust of Pinus sylvestris. J. Hazard. Mater. 2003;105:
121-142.
196. Chauhan GS, Jaswal SC, Verma M. Post functionalization
of carboxymethylated starch and acrylonitrile based networks
through amidoximation for use as ion sorbents. Carbohydr.
Polym. 2006;66:435-443.
197. Saliba R, Gauthier H, Gauthier R, Petit-Ramel M. Adsorption
of copper (II) and chromium (III) Ions onto amidoximated
cellulose. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2000;75:1624-1631.
198. Oshima T, Kondo K, Ohto K, Inoue K, Baba Y. Preparation
of phosphorylated bacterial cellulose as an adsorbent for metal
ions. React. Funct. Polym. 2008;68:376-383.
199. Navarro R, Bierbrauer K, Giangos C, Goiti E, Reinecke H.
Modification of poly (vinyl chloride) with new aromatic thiol
compounds. Synthesis and characterization. Polym. Degrad.
Stab. 2008;93:585-591.
200. Li FT, Yang H, Zhao Y, Xu R. Novel modified pectin for
heavy metal adsorption. Chin. Chem. Lett. 2007;18:325-328.
201. Pushpamalar V, Langford SJ, Ahmad M, Lim YY. Optimization
of reaction conditions for preparing carboxymethyl cellulose
from sago waste. Carbohydr. Polym. 2006;64:312-318.
202. Chauhan GS, Chauhan K, Chauhan S, Kumar S, Kumari A.
Functionalization of pine needles by carboxymethylation and
network formation for use as supports in the adsorption of
6+
Cr . Carbohydr. Polym. 2007;70:415-421.
203. Wang J. Biosorption of copper(II) by chemically modified
biomass of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Process Biochem.
2002;37:847-850.
204. Goksungur Y, Uren S, Guvenc U. Biosorption of cadmium
and lead ions by ethanol treated waste baker's yeast biomass.
Bioresour. Technol. 2005;96:103-109.
205. Rincon J, Gonzalez F, Ballester A, Blazquez ML, Munoz JA.
Biosorption of heavy metals by chemically-activated alga
Fucus vesiculosus. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2005;80:
1403-1407.
206. Gupta VK, Agarwal S, Singh P, Pathania D. Acrylic acid grafted
cellulosic Luffa cylindrical fiber for the removal of dye and
metal ions. Carbohydr. Polym. 2013;98:1214-1221.
207. Anirudhan TS, Sreekumari SS, Jalajamony S. An investigation
into the adsorption of thorium(IV) from aqueous solutions
by a carboxylate-functionalised graft copolymer derived from
titanium dioxide-densified cellulose. J. Environ. Radioactivity
2013;116:141-147.
18
208. Isobea N, Chen X, Kim U-Z, et al. TEMPO-oxidized cellulose
hydrogel as a high-capacity and reusable heavy metal ion
adsorbent. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013;260:195-201.
209. Shuaiyang W, Huiling L, Junli R, Chuanfu L, Feng P, Runcang
S. Preparation of xylan citrate—A potential adsorbent for
industrial wastewater treatment. Carbohydr. Polym. 2013;92:
1960-1965.
210. Grey M, Marchetti V, Clement A, Loubinoux B, Gerardin
P. Decontamination of synthetic solutions containing heavy
metals using chemically modified sawdusts bearing poly-
acrylic acid chains. J. Wood Sci.200;46:331-333.
211. Saliba R, Gauthier H, Gauthier R. Adsorption of heavy metal
ions on virgin and chemically-modified lignocellulosic
materials. Ads. Sci. Technol. 2005;23:313-322.
212. Shibi IG, Anirudhan TS. Synthesis, characterisation, and ap-
plication as a mercury(II) sorbent of banana stalk (Musa para-
disiaca)-polyacrylamide grafted copolymer bearing carboxyl
groups. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2002;41:5341-5352.
213. Deng S, Ting YP. Fungal biomass with grafted poly(acrylic
acid) for enhancement of Cu (II) and Cd(II) biosorption.
Langmuir 2005;21:5940-5948.
214. Errasquin EL, Vazquez C. Tolerance and uptake of heavy
metals by Trichoderma atroviride isolated from sludge.
Chemosphere 2003;50:137-143.
215. Hesas RH, Daud WMAW, Sahu JN, Niya AA. The effects
of a microwave heating method on the production of activated
carbon from agricultural waste: A review. J. Anal. App.
Pyrolysis. 2013;100:1-11.
216. Maldhure AV, Ekhe JD. Preparation and characterizations
of microwave assisted activated carbons from industrial waste
lignin for Cu(II) sorption. Chem. Eng. J. 2011;168:1103-1111.
217. Foo KY, Hameed BH. Preparation and characterization of
activated carbon from sunflower seed oil residue via micro-
wave assisted K2CO3 activation. Bioresour. Technol. 2011;102:
9794-9799.
218. Foo KY, Hameed BH. Preparation, characterization and evalu-
ation of adsorptive properties of orange peel based activated
carbons via microwave assisted K2CO3 activation. Bioresour.
Technol. 2012;104:679-686.
219. Anirudhan TS, Sreekumari SS. Adsorptive removal of heavy
metal ions from industrial effluents using activated carbon
derived from waste coconut buttons. J. Environ. Sci.
2011;23:1989-1998.
220. Gautam RK, Mudhoo A, Lofrano G, Chattopadhyay MC.
Biomass-derived biosorbents for metal ions sequestration:
Adsorbent modification and activation methods and adsorb-
ent regeneration. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2014;2:239-259.
221. Volesky B, Naja G. Biosorption: application strategies. In:
16th International Biohydrometallurgy Symposium; 2005 Sep
25-29; Cape Town, South Africa.
222. Garnham GW. The use of algae as metal biosorbents. In:
Wase J, Forster C, eds. Biosorbents for metal ions. London,
UK: CRC Press; 1997. p. 11-37.
223. Park D, Yun YS, Park JM. The Past, Present, and Future Trends
of Biosorption. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2010;15:86-102.